A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014) • Hacker News Board

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#101

Post by Paperweight » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 10:56 PM UTC

jstarfish wrote: post #34

Paperweight wrote: post #21

My girlfriend runs an independent video rental store. I've been thinking of ways to implement a streaming service for our extensive collection of physical DVDs from the store to customers in the local area, perhaps to a proprietary TV box. I have the skills to do this. Does anybody here know if this has ever been done, or is legal? I'm in BC, Canada.

Technical execution is the easy part, but legally speaking, you might fare much better by just offering to physically deliver movies on demand.

Yeah, you're probably right. I'm thinking of making Canada's only mail-order DVD/BR website.

Netflix bought Zip.ca but then they shut down mail orders. We don't even have Redbox anymore. It's sad that there are a lot of great movies you can't legally stream online in Canada - can't even torrent them - but we have them on DVD in high quality.

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#102

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 11:26 PM UTC

Paperweight wrote: post #98

Dylan16807 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean two people watching a movie together are breaking that law?

There's all kinds of exceptions and things in there, plus a copyright board that makes decisions. Notable is 29.22 Reproduction for private purposes is allowed if 29.22 (1) (a) the individual legally obtained the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made, other than by borrowing it or renting it, and owns or is authorized to use the medium or device on which it is reproduced; So it…

That's making a copy, not really relevant to viewing, so I'm not really sure why you're quoting it.

If it was relevant to viewing then it would imply that two people watching a rental aren't covered...

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#103

Post by scarface74 » Sat, Jul 14, 2018, 10:12 PM UTC

xapata wrote: post #71

Dylan16807 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A movie being popular is half quality and half marketing. Unless we abolish huge advertising budgets, there's no reason to assume that the mainstream viewer would actually give the best ratings to mainstream movies.

Yet people care sometimes more about popularity than quality. You want to watch the same movie everyone else did so that you can chat about it.

Before I had the AMC subscription movie pass, we wouldn’t bother about spending money going to a movie that wasn’t one of the big blockbuster movies. A movie that is all about a great concept or great plot, is just as enjoyable on a TV at home.

We went to movies to see action, special effects, etc. on the big screen. We also never went to a movie that we couldn’t reserve our seats in advance.

What you consider “quality” and what most people consider quality - ie what enough people are willing to pay money for to make it a $1 billion grossing movie is different.

When we had to spend money on individual movies, the movies that had the “quality” we were willing to go out and pay for are the ones that delivered something that we couldn’t easily replicate at home. Anything else we could just pay $5.00 to rent it on iTunes or wait for it to fall off the back of a truck onto my Plex Server.

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#104

Post by mikekchar » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 1:01 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #96

mikekchar wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feel free to consult a lawyer, but there are 2 parties to which the copyright act refers: the public and researchers. The definition of researchers is given in the act. The public is everybody else -- you, the renter, anyone else that isn't a researcher. The way it works is that the act outlines all of the circumstances in which copying could be infringing. It then defines infringement in section 2. In section 2 it s…

Does that mean two people watching a movie together are breaking that law?

Read the act. There is a section for presentation of audio visual works.

I understand that you want to be upset at the copyright act. I actually don't like it very much either. But you do yourself and others a disservice by maintaining an intentionally ignorant stance. If you want to help, learn about it and do something useful. Sniping at people who are trying to help you is completely unhelpful.

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#105

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 8:52 PM UTC

mikekchar wrote: post #104

Dylan16807 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean two people watching a movie together are breaking that law?

Read the act. There is a section for presentation of audio visual works. I understand that you want to be upset at the copyright act. I actually don't like it very much either. But you do yourself and others a disservice by maintaining an intentionally ignorant stance. If you want to help, learn about it and do something useful. Sniping at people who are trying to help you is completely unhelpful.

I'm curious why you think I'm 'sniping', because I'm not trying to be hostile at all. And I don't trust myself to read the law very well, because copyright-related law is often contradictory and impossible to understand without extensive case law understanding.

And even if the Canadian version is easy to understand, it doesn't help the US version being excessively twisted in my eyes to make very reasonable things illegal. I'm frankly amazed that 'cloud DVR' wasn't shut down immediately.